STANSBURY v. CALIFORNIA. certiorari to the supreme court of california
|
|
- Gabriel Hill
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 318 OCTOBER TERM, 1993 Syllabus STANSBURY v. CALIFORNIA certiorari to the supreme court of california No Argued March 30, 1994 Decided April 26, 1994 When California police first questioned petitioner Stansbury as a possible witness to the rape and murder of a 10-year-old girl, they had another suspect. However, Stansbury became a suspect during the interview, when he told police that, on the night of the murder, he drove a car matching the one seen where the girl s body was found. After he also admitted to prior convictions for rape, kidnaping, and child molestation, officers stopped the interview, advised him of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, and arrested him. The trial court denied his pretrial motion to suppress his statements to the police, reasoning that he was not in custody for purposes of Miranda until the officers began to suspect him. He was convicted of, inter alia, first-degree murder and sentenced to death. In affirming, the State Supreme Court concluded that one of the relevant factors in determining whether Stansbury was in custody was whether the investigation was focused on him. Agreeing that suspicion focused on him only when he mentioned the car, the court found that Miranda did not bar the admission of statements made before that point. Held: Because the initial determination of custody depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, an officer s subjective and undisclosed view concerning whether the interrogee is a suspect is irrelevant to the assessment whether that person is in custody. See, e. g., Beckwith v. United States, 425 U. S Numerous statements in the State Supreme Court s opinion are open to the interpretation that the court regarded the officers subjective beliefs regarding Stansbury s status as a suspect as significant in and of themselves, rather than as relevant only to the extent they influenced the objective conditions surrounding his interrogation. The State Supreme Court should consider in the first instance whether objective circumstances show that Stansbury was in custody during the entire interrogation. 4 Cal. 4th 1017, 846 P. 2d 756, reversed and remanded. Robert M. Westberg, by appointment of the Court, 510 U. S. 1009, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were David S. Winton and Joseph A. Hearst.
2 Cite as: 511 U. S. 318 (1994) 319 Aileen Bunney, Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Ronald A. Bass, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Ronald E. Niver, Deputy Attorney General.*. This case concerns the rules for determining whether a person being questioned by law enforcement officers is held in custody, and thus entitled to the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). We hold, not for the first time, that an officer s subjective and undisclosed view concerning whether the person being interrogated is a suspect is irrelevant to the assessment whether the person is in custody. I Ten-year-old Robyn Jackson disappeared from a playground in Baldwin Park, California, at around 6:30 p.m. on September 28, Early the next morning, about 10 miles away in Pasadena, Andrew Zimmerman observed a large man emerge from a turquoise American sedan and throw something into a nearby flood control channel. Zimmerman called the police, who arrived at the scene and discovered the girl s body in the channel. There was evidence that she had been raped, and the cause of death was determined to be asphyxia complicated by blunt force trauma to the head. Lieutenant Thomas Johnston, a detective with the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department, investigated the hom- *Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Orange County District Attorney, State of California, by Michael R. Capizzi and Devallis Rutledge; for Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc., by Bernard J. Farber, Fred E. Inbau, Wayne W. Schmidt, and James P. Manak; and for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation by Kent S. Scheidegger.
3 320 STANSBURY v. CALIFORNIA icide. From witnesses interviewed on the day the body was discovered, he learned that Robyn had talked to two ice cream truck drivers, one being petitioner Robert Edward Stansbury, in the hours before her disappearance. Given these contacts, Johnston thought Stansbury and the other driver might have some connection with the homicide or knowledge thereof, but for reasons unimportant here Johnston considered only the other driver to be a leading suspect. After the suspect driver was brought in for interrogation, Johnston asked Officer Lee of the Baldwin Park Police Department to contact Stansbury to see if he would come in for questioning as a potential witness. Lee and three other plainclothes officers arrived at Stansbury s trailer home at about 11:00 that evening. The officers surrounded the door and Lee knocked. When Stansbury answered, Lee told him the officers were investigating a homicide to which Stansbury was a possible witness and asked if he would accompany them to the police station to answer some questions. Stansbury agreed to the interview and accepted a ride to the station in the front seat of Lee s police car. At the station, Lieutenant Johnston, in the presence of another officer, questioned Stansbury about his whereabouts and activities during the afternoon and evening of September 28. Neither Johnston nor the other officer issued Miranda warnings. Stansbury told the officers (among other things) that on the evening of the 28th he spoke with the victim at about 6:00, returned to his trailer home after work at 9:00, and left the trailer at about midnight in his housemate s turquoise, American-made car. This last detail aroused Johnston s suspicions, as the turquoise car matched the description of the one Andrew Zimmerman had observed in Pasadena. When Stansbury, in response to a further question, admitted to prior convictions for rape, kidnaping, and child molestation, Johnston terminated the interview and another officer advised Stansbury of his Miranda rights.
4 Cite as: 511 U. S. 318 (1994) 321 Stansbury declined to make further statements, requested an attorney, and was arrested. Respondent State of California charged Stansbury with first-degree murder and other crimes. Stansbury filed a pretrial motion to suppress all statements made at the station, and the evidence discovered as a result of those statements. The trial court denied the motion in relevant part, ruling that Stansbury was not in custody and thus not entitled to Miranda warnings until he mentioned that he had taken his housemate s turquoise car for a midnight drive. Before that stage of the interview, the trial court reasoned, the focus in [Lieutenant Johnston s] mind certainly was on the other ice cream [truck] driver, Tr. 2368; only after Mr. Stansbury made the comment... describing the... turquoise-colored automobile did Johnston s suspicions shif[t] to Mr. Stansbury, ibid. Based upon its conclusion that Stansbury was not in custody until Johnston s suspicions had focused on him, the trial court permitted the prosecution to introduce in its case in chief the statements Stansbury made before that time. At trial, the jury convicted Stansbury of first-degree murder, rape, kidnaping, and lewd act on a child under the age of 14, and fixed the penalty for the first-degree murder at death. The California Supreme Court affirmed. Before determining whether Stansbury was in custody during the interview at the station, the court set out what it viewed as the applicable legal standard: In deciding the custody issue, the totality of the circumstances is relevant, and no one factor is dispositive. However, the most important considerations include (1) the site of the interrogation, (2) whether the investigation has focused on the subject, (3) whether the objective indicia of arrest are present, and (4) the length and form of questioning. 4 Cal. 4th 1017, 1050, 846 P. 2d 756, 775 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted).
5 322 STANSBURY v. CALIFORNIA The court proceeded to analyze the second factor in detail, in the end accepting the trial court s factual determination that suspicion focused on [Stansbury] only when he mentioned that he had driven a turquoise car on the night of the crime. Id., at 1052, 846 P. 2d, at 776. The court conclude[d] that [Stansbury] was not subject to custodial interrogation before he mentioned the turquoise car, and thus approved the trial court s ruling that Miranda v. Arizona did not bar the admission of statements Stansbury made before that point. 4 Cal. 4th, at 1054, 846 P. 2d, at We granted certiorari. 510 U. S. 943 (1993). II We held in Miranda that a person questioned by law enforcement officers after being taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way must first be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. 384 U. S., at 444. Statements elicited in noncompliance with this rule may not be admitted for certain purposes in a criminal trial. Compare id., at 492, 494, with Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 (1971). An officer s obligation to administer Miranda warnings attaches, however, only where there has been such a restriction on a person s freedom as to render him in custody. Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U. S. 492, 495 (1977) (per curiam); see also Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U. S. 292, 296 (1990). In determining whether an individual was in custody, a court must examine all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, but the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there [was] a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest. California v. Beheler, 463 U. S. 1121, 1125 (1983) (per curiam) (quoting Mathiason, supra, at 495).
6 Cite as: 511 U. S. 318 (1994) 323 Our decisions make clear that the initial determination of custody depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned. In Beckwith v. United States, 425 U. S. 341 (1976), for example, the defendant, without being advised of his Miranda rights, made incriminating statements to Government agents during an interview in a private home. He later asked that Miranda be extended to cover interrogation in noncustodial circumstances after a police investigation has focused on the suspect. 425 U. S., at 345 (internal quotation marks omitted). We found his argument unpersuasive, explaining that it was the compulsive aspect of custodial interrogation, and not the strength or content of the government s suspicions at the time the questioning was conducted, which led the Court to impose the Miranda requirements with regard to custodial questioning. Id., at (internal quotation marks omitted). As a result, we concluded that the defendant was not entitled to Miranda warnings: Although the focus of an investigation may indeed have been on Beckwith at the time of the interview..., he hardly found himself in the custodial situation described by the Miranda Court as the basis for its holding. 425 U. S., at 347. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420 (1984), reaffirmed the conclusions reached in Beckwith. Berkemer concerned the roadside questioning of a motorist detained in a traffic stop. We decided that the motorist was not in custody for purposes of Miranda even though the traffic officer apparently decided as soon as [the motorist] stepped out of his car that [the motorist] would be taken into custody and charged with a traffic offense. 468 U. S., at 442. The reason, we explained, was that the officer never communicated his intention to the motorist during the relevant questioning. Ibid. The lack of communication was crucial, for under Miranda [a] policeman s unarticulated plan has no bearing on the question whether a suspect was in custody at a particular
7 324 STANSBURY v. CALIFORNIA time ; rather, the only relevant inquiry is how a reasonable man in the suspect s position would have understood his situation. 468 U. S., at 442. Other cases of ours have been consistent in adhering to this understanding of the custody element of Miranda. See, e. g., Mathiason, supra, at495 ( Nor is the requirement of warnings to be imposed simply because... the questioned person is one whom the police suspect. Miranda warnings are required only where there has been such a restriction on a person s freedom as to render him in custody ); Beheler, supra, at 1124, n. 2 ( Our holding in Mathiason reflected our earlier decision in [Beckwith], in which we rejected the notion that the in custody requirement was satisfied merely because the police interviewed a person who was the focus of a criminal investigation ); Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U. S. 420, 431 (1984) ( The mere fact that an investigation has focused on a suspect does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings in noncustodial settings, and the probation officer s knowledge and intent have no bearing on the outcome of this case ) (citation omitted); cf. Pennsylvania v. Bruder, 488 U. S. 9, 11, n. 2 (1988). It is well settled, then, that a police officer s subjective view that the individual under questioning is a suspect, if undisclosed, does not bear upon the question whether the individual is in custody for purposes of Miranda. See F. Inbau, J. Reid, & J. Buckley, Criminal Interrogation and Confessions 232, 236, (3d ed. 1986). The same principle obtains if an officer s undisclosed assessment is that the person being questioned is not a suspect. In either instance, one cannot expect the person under interrogation to probe the officer s innermost thoughts. Save as they are communicated or otherwise manifested to the person being questioned, an officer s evolving but unarticulated suspicions do not affect the objective circumstances of an interrogation or interview, and thus cannot affect the Miranda custody inquiry. The threat to a citizen s Fifth Amendment rights
8 Cite as: 511 U. S. 318 (1994) 325 that Miranda was designed to neutralize has little to do with the strength of an interrogating officer s suspicions. Berkemer, supra, at 435, n. 22. An officer s knowledge or beliefs may bear upon the custody issue if they are conveyed, by word or deed, to the individual being questioned. Cf. Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U. S. 567, 575, n. 7 (1988) (citing United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U. S. 544, 554, n. 6 (1980) (opinion of Stewart, J.)). Those beliefs are relevant only to the extent they would affect how a reasonable person in the position of the individual being questioned would gauge the breadth of his or her freedom of action. Berkemer, supra, at 440. Even a clear statement from an officer that the person under interrogation is a prime suspect is not, in itself, dispositive of the custody issue, for some suspects are free to come and go until the police decide to make an arrest. The weight and pertinence of any communications regarding the officer s degree of suspicion will depend upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case. In sum, an officer s views concerning the nature of an interrogation, or beliefs concerning the potential culpability of the individual being questioned, may be one among many factors that bear upon the assessment whether that individual was in custody, but only if the officer s views or beliefs were somehow manifested to the individual under interrogation and would have affected how a reasonable person in that position would perceive his or her freedom to leave. (Of course, instances may arise in which the officer s undisclosed views are relevant in testing the credibility of his or her account of what happened during an interrogation; but it is the objective surroundings, and not any undisclosed views, that control the Miranda custody inquiry.) We decide on this state of the record that the California Supreme Court s analysis of whether Stansbury was in custody is not consistent in all respects with the foregoing principles. Numerous statements in the court s opinion are open
9 326 STANSBURY v. CALIFORNIA to the interpretation that the court regarded the officers subjective beliefs regarding Stansbury s status as a suspect (or nonsuspect) as significant in and of themselves, rather than as relevant only to the extent they influenced the objective conditions surrounding his interrogation. See 4 Cal. 4th, at 1050, 846 P. 2d, at 775 ( whether the investigation ha[d] focused on the person being questioned is among the most important considerations in assessing whether the person was in custody). So understood, the court s analysis conflicts with our precedents. The court s apparent conclusion that Stansbury s Miranda rights were triggered by virtue of the fact that he had become the focus of the officers suspicions, see 4 Cal. 4th, at 1052, 1054, 846 P. 2d, at 776, ; cf., e. g., State v. Blanding, 69 Haw. 583, , 752 P. 2d 99, 101 (1988); State v. Hartman, 703 S. W. 2d 106, 120 (Tenn. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U. S (1986); People v. Herdon, 42 Cal. App. 3d 300, 307, n. 10, 116 Cal. Rptr. 641, 645, n. 10 (1974), is incorrect as well. Our cases make clear, in no uncertain terms, that any inquiry into whether the interrogating officers have focused their suspicions upon the individual being questioned (assuming those suspicions remain undisclosed) is not relevant for purposes of Miranda. See generally 1 W. LaFave & J. Israel, Criminal Procedure 6.6(a), pp (1984). The State acknowledges that Lieutenant Johnston s and the other officers subjective and undisclosed suspicions (or lack thereof) do not bear upon the question whether Stansbury was in custody, for purposes of Miranda, during the station house interview. It maiṅtains, however, that the objective facts in the record support a finding that Stansbury was not in custody until his arrest. Stansbury, by contrast, asserts that the objective circumstances show that he was in custody during the entire interrogation. We think it appropriate for the California Supreme Court to consider this question in the first instance. We therefore reverse its
10 Cite as: 511 U. S. 318 (1994) 327 Blackmun, J., concurring judgment and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Justice Blackmun, concurring. I join the Court s per curiam opinion and merely add that, even if I were not persuaded that the judgment must be reversed for the reasons stated in that opinion, I would adhere to my view that the death penalty cannot be imposed fairly within the constraints of our Constitution. See my dissent in Callins v. Collins, 510 U. S. 1141, 1143 (1994). I therefore would vacate the death sentence on that ground, too.
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 28, 2017 v No. 335272 Ottawa Circuit Court MAX THOMAS PRZYSUCHA, LC No. 16-040340-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN Record No June 9, 2005
PRESENT: All the Justices RODNEY L. DIXON, JR. v. Record No. 041952 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN Record No. 041996 June 9, 2005 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
More informationKAUPP v. TEXAS. on petition for writ of certiorari to the court of appeals of texas, fourteenth district
626 OCTOBER TERM, 2002 Syllabus KAUPP v. TEXAS on petition for writ of certiorari to the court of appeals of texas, fourteenth district No. 02 5636. Decided May 5, 2003 After petitioner Kaupp, then 17,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 541 U. S. (2004) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 15, 2006 v No. 259193 Washtenaw Circuit Court ERIC JOHN BOLDISZAR, LC No. 02-001366-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as State v. Figueroa, 2010-Ohio-189.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) STATE OF OHIO C. A. No. 09CA009612 Appellant v. MARILYN FIGUEROA Appellee
More informationKNOWLES v. IOWA. certiorari to the supreme court of iowa
OCTOBER TERM, 1998 113 Syllabus KNOWLES v. IOWA certiorari to the supreme court of iowa No. 97 7597. Argued November 3, 1998 Decided December 8, 1998 An Iowa policeman stopped petitioner Knowles for speeding
More informationMiranda Rights. Interrogations and Confessions
Miranda Rights Interrogations and Confessions Brae and Nathan Agenda Objective Miranda v. Arizona Application of Miranda How Subjects Apply Miranda Miranda Exceptions Police Deception Reflection Objective
More informationSubmitted January 31, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Fasciale and Gilson.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationCase 1:08-cr SLR Document 24 Filed 07/14/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:08-cr-00040-SLR Document 24 Filed 07/14/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Criminal Action No. 08-40-SLR
More informationSUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc. v. ) No. SC APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT OF LAWRENCE COUNTY Honorable Jack A.L.
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc ) Opinion issued December 6, 2016 STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. SC95613 ) DAVID K. HOLMAN, ) ) Respondent. ) APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT OF LAWRENCE COUNTY
More informationIn this interlocutory appeal, the supreme court considers whether the district court
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association
More informationThe Law of Interrogation in North Carolina
The Law of Interrogation in North Carolina Jeff Welty December 2011 1. Voluntariness a. Generally. A suspect s statement is voluntary if it is the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice
More informationDISSENTING OPINION BY NAKAMURA, C.J.
DISSENTING OPINION BY NAKAMURA, C.J. I respectfully dissent. Although the standard of review for whether police conduct constitutes interrogation is not entirely clear, it appears that Hawai i applies
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Coston, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) O P I N I O N. Rendered on August 3, 2006
[Cite as State v. Coston, 168 Ohio App.3d 278, 2006-Ohio-3961.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT The State of Ohio, : Appellant, : No. 05AP-905 v. : (C.P.C. No. 05CR02-919) Coston,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: LORINDA MEIER YOUNGCOURT Huron, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana JOBY D. JERRELLS Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 118,589 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, EDGAR HUGH EAKIN, Appellee.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 118,589 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. EDGAR HUGH EAKIN, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Finney District Court;
More informationPage U.S. 129 S.Ct L. Ed. 2d 694. v. LEMON MONTREA JOHNSON. No Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 9, 2008.
Page 1 555 U.S. 129 S.Ct. 781 172 L. Ed. 2d 694 ARIZONA, PETITIONER v. LEMON MONTREA JOHNSON No. 07-1122. Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 9, 2008. Decided January 26, 2009. In Terry v.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 555 U. S. (2009) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 19, 2008
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 19, 2008 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JEREMY W. MEEKS Appeal from the Circuit Court for Grundy County No. 3948 Buddy Perry,
More informationS09A0155. TIMMRECK v. THE STATE. A jury found Christopher Franklin Timmreck guilty of the malice murder
Final Copy 285 Ga. 39 S09A0155. TIMMRECK v. THE STATE. Carley, Justice. A jury found Christopher Franklin Timmreck guilty of the malice murder of Brian Anderson. The trial court entered judgment of conviction
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO. The indictment. Defendant James Sparks-Henderson is charged with the November 21, 2014, aggravated
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO THE STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff, -vs- JAMES SPARKS-HENDERSON, Defendant. ) CASE NO. CR 16 605330 ) ) JUDGE JOHN P. O DONNELL ) ) JUDGMENT ENTRY DENYING )
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2010 ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D09-1978 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion filed May 28, 2010 Appeal
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED February 16, 2001 v No. 214253 Oakland Circuit Court TIMMY ORLANDO COLLIER, LC No. 98-158327-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationv No St. Clair Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 30, 2018 v No. 337354 St. Clair Circuit Court RICKY EDWARDS, LC No. 16-002145-FH
More information[J ] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT
[J-16-2015] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, v. TIFFANY LEE BARNES, Appellant Appellee : No. 111 MAP 2014 : : Appeal from the Order of the Superior : Court
More informationThe Burger Court Opinion Writing Database
The Burger Court Opinion Writing Database Berkemer v. McCarty 468 U.S. 42 (1984) Paul J. Wahlbeck, George Washington University James F. Spriggs, II, Washington University in St. Louis Forrest Maltzman,
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. No. SC07-2295 STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. KEVIN DEWAYNE POWELL, Respondent. [June 16, 2011] CORRECTED OPINION This case comes before this Court on remand from
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
No. 131 March 25, 2015 41 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROBERT DARNELL BOYD, Defendant-Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 201026332; A151157
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 24, 2008 v No. 277652 Wayne Circuit Court SHELLY ANDRE BROOKS, LC No. 06-010881-01 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationS08A1621, S08X1622. THE STATE v. FOLSOM; and vice versa. Kenneth Doyle Folsom is charged with the kidnapping and murder of
Final Copy 285 Ga. 11 S08A1621, S08X1622. THE STATE v. FOLSOM; and vice versa. Benham, Justice. Kenneth Doyle Folsom is charged with the kidnapping and murder of Bobby Timms. 1 On the morning of July 31,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 20, 2015 v No. 327393 Wayne Circuit Court ROKSANA GABRIELA SIKORSKI, LC No. 15-001059-FJ Defendant-Appellee.
More informationNo. 112,329 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS Plaintiff-Appellant. vs. NORMAN C. BRAMLETT Defendant-Appellee
FLED No. 112,329 JAN 14 2015 HEATHER t. SfvilTH CLERK OF APPELLATE COURTS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS Plaintiff-Appellant vs. NORMAN C. BRAMLETT Defendant-Appellee BRIEF
More informationNo. 07SA379, The People of the State of Colorado v. Kevin Franklin Elmarr: Suppression -- necessity of Miranda warnings -- custody
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/supctcaseannctsindex.htm and are posted on the
More information[J ] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT : : : : : : : : : : : OPINION. MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: January 20, 1999
[J-216-1998] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, v. ANTHONY PERSIANO, Appellant Appellee 60 E.D. Appeal Docket 1997 Appeal from the Order of the Superior
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs at Jackson August 7, 2007
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs at Jackson August 7, 2007 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MARIA A. DILLS Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dickson County No. CR7695
More informationCourt of Common Pleas
Motion No. 4570624 NAILAH K. BYRD CUYAHOGA COUNTY CUERK OF COURTS 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Court of Common Pleas MOTION TO... March 7, 201714:10 By: SEAN KILBANE 0092072 Confirmation Nbr.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 543 U. S. (2004) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More information2009 VT 75. No On Appeal from v. District Court of Vermont, Unit No. 2, Bennington Circuit. Michael M. Christmas March Term, 2009
State v. Christmas (2008-303) 2009 VT 75 [Filed 24-Jul-2009] NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
More informationNo. 67,103. [November 12, 1987
CORRECTED OPINION No. 67,103 ROBERT JOE LONG, Appellant, VS. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [November 12, 1987 PER CURIAM. Robert Joe Long appeals his conviction for first-degree murder and his sentence of
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida QUINCE, J. No. SC08-1519 ERIC CHRISTOPHER CALDWELL, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. [July 8, 2010] We have for review the decision of the Second District Court of
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 542 U. S. (2004) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 02 1371 MISSOURI, PETITIONER v. PATRICE SEIBERT ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI [June 28, 2004] JUSTICE KENNEDY,
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-22-2016 USA v. Marcus Pough Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2008
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2008 Opinion filed April 9, 2008. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D06-1940 Lower Tribunal No.
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2010 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D09-1356 JUNIOR JOSEPH, Appellee. / Opinion filed December 3, 2010 Appeal
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED June 16, 2016 v No. 328740 Mackinac Circuit Court RICHARD ALLAN MCKENZIE, JR., LC No. 15-003602 Defendant-Appellee.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 541 U. S. (2004) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 27, 2011 v No. 297455 Kent Circuit Court BOBBY JAY FISK, LC No. 08-011230-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationANTHONY T. ALSTON OPINION BY v. Record No CHIEF JUSTICE HARRY L. CARRICO November 1, 2002 COMMONWEALTLH OF VIRGINIA
Present: All the Justices ANTHONY T. ALSTON OPINION BY v. Record No. 012348 CHIEF JUSTICE HARRY L. CARRICO November 1, 2002 COMMONWEALTLH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA The question
More informationNOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.
--- N.E.2d ----, 2008 WL 733948 (Ill.) Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED April 1, 2014 v No. 309974 Macomb Circuit Court RENEE MARIE KING, LC No. 2011-001495-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D12-392
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2013 STATE OF FLORIDA, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Appellant,
More informationVirtues (and Limits) of Shared Values: The Fourth Amendment and Miranda's Concept of Custody
College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 1993 Virtues (and Limits) of Shared Values: The Fourth Amendment and Miranda's
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,398 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, TYLER REGELMAN, Appellee.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,398 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. TYLER REGELMAN, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Geary District
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:10-cr-00225-CKK Document 26 Filed 01/31/11 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STEPHEN JIN-WOO KIM Defendant. CASE NO. 1:10-CR-225
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Leonard, 2007-Ohio-3312.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. TIMOTHY LEONARD, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 540 U. S. (2003) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: December 27, 2011 Docket No. 30,331 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, CANDACE S., Child-Appellant. APPEAL FROM
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
No. 23 June 18, 2015 365 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Petitioner on Review, v. WILLIAM RICK DELONG, Respondent on Review. (CC 09CR1050FE; CA A146907; SC S062176) En Banc
More informationNo. 102,369 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, KENNETH S. GOFF, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 102,369 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. KENNETH S. GOFF, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. If an officer detects the odor of raw marijuana emanating from
More informationA digest of twenty one (21) significant US Supreme Court decisions interpreting Miranda
From Miranda v. Arizona to Howes v. Fields A digest of twenty one (21) significant US Supreme Court decisions interpreting Miranda (1968 2012) In Miranda v. Arizona, the US Supreme Court rendered one of
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges McClanahan, Petty and Beales Argued at Salem, Virginia TERRY JOE LYLE MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 0121-07-3 JUDGE WILLIAM G. PETTY APRIL 29, 2008
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. PD-0570-11 GENOVEVO SALINAS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HARRIS COUNTY Womack, J., delivered
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO v. : T.C. NO CR 3357
[Cite as State v. Jolly, 2008-Ohio-6547.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 22811 v. : T.C. NO. 2007 CR 3357 DERION JOLLY : (Criminal
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2015 TIMOTHY LEE MERCER STATE OF MARYLAND
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2068 September Term, 2015 TIMOTHY LEE MERCER v. STATE OF MARYLAND Eyler, Deborah S., Kehoe, Shaw Geter, JJ. Opinion by Shaw Geter, J. Filed: September
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
E-Filed Document Nov 2 2015 07:21:41 2014-KA-01098-COA Pages: 17 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO. 2014-KA-01098-COA SHERMAN BILLIE, SR. APPELLANT VS. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
More informationSTATE OF OHIO MARIO COOPER
[Cite as State v. Cooper, 2009-Ohio-2583.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91566 STATE OF OHIO vs. MARIO COOPER PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationFifth Amendment--Confessions and the Right to Counsel
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 68 Issue 4 December Article 4 Winter 1977 Fifth Amendment--Confessions and the Right to Counsel Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc
More informationFifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment Rights
You do not need your computers today. Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment Rights How have the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments' rights of the accused been incorporated as a right of all American citizens?
More informationState of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department
State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: December 3, 2015 105435 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SCOTT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: May 6, 2011 Docket No. 29,143 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, JERICOLE COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL FROM
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 4, 2004 v No. 245057 Midland Circuit Court JACKIE LEE MACK, LC No. 02-001062-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 31, 2003 v No. 235191 Calhoun Circuit Court CURTIS JOHN-LEE BANKS, LC No. 00-002668-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationESCOBEDO AND MIRANDA REVISITED by
ESCOBEDO AND MIRANDA REVISITED by ARTHUR J. GOLDBERGW Shortly before the close of the 1983 term, the Supreme Court of the United States decided two cases, U.S. v. Gouveial and New York v. Quarles 2, which
More informationMOTION TO SUPPRESS. 1. Approximately 78 grams of marijuana seized from the co-defendants vehicle on
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF WAKE IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION FILE NO. 08CRSXXXXX STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA vs. SP MOTION TO SUPPRESS COMES NOW, Defendant, SP, by and through
More information2017 CO 100. In this interlocutory appeal, the supreme court concludes that the conversation
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationREPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONER
No. 09-11121 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States J.D.B., Petitioner, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONER
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL CIVITELLA v. Appellant No. 353 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2006 CHAD BARGER, Appellant, v. CASE NO. 5D04-1565 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion filed March 24, 2006 Appeal
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 10-680 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States CAROL HOWES, WARDEN, v. Petitioner, RANDALL LEE FIELDS, Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
More informationJOSELYN S. KELLY Lancaster, Ohio ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS 239 West Main Street, Suite 101 Lancaster, Ohio 43130
[Cite as State v. Hawkins, 2012-Ohio-3137.] COURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellant -vs- SEAN HAWKINS Defendant-Appellee JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. NO. 29,570. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY Gary L. Clingman, District Judge
0 0 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule -0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that
More informationCLASS 1 READING & BRIEFING. Matthew L.M. Fletcher Monday August 20, :00 to 11:30 am
CLASS 1 READING & BRIEFING Matthew L.M. Fletcher Monday August 20, 2011 9:00 to 11:30 am Intro to Fletcher s Teaching Style 2 Pure Socratic? Lecture? Pure Socratic 3 Professor: Mr. A. What am I thinking
More information2012 CO 55 No. 12SA101, People v. Pittman, Miranda suppression custodial interrogation totality of the circumstances
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association
More informationSYLLABUS. State v. Angelina Nicole Carlucci (A-85-11) (069183)
SYLLABUS (This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2003 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-19-2003 USA v. Mercedes Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket 00-2563 Follow this and additional
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2015COA132 Court of Appeals No. 12CA2069 El Paso County District Court No. 11CR3701 Honorable Thomas L. Kennedy, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationSAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT PROCEDURE
SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT PROCEDURE DATE: MARCH 1, 2013 NUMBER: SUBJECT: RELATED POLICY: ORIGINATING DIVISION: 4.03 LEGAL ADMONITION PROCEDURES N/A INVESTIGATIONS II NEW PROCEDURE: PROCEDURAL CHANGE:
More informationv No Macomb Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 17, 2017 v No. 332830 Macomb Circuit Court ANGELA MARIE ALEXIE, LC No.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationAppellate Court of Connecticut. STATE of Connecticut v. Glenn L. DOYLE. No Argued Jan. 4, Decided Sept. 25, 2007.
- A.2d ----, 104 Conn.App. 4, 2007 WL 2727254 (Conn.App.) Briefs and Other Related Documents Appellate Court of Connecticut. STATE of Connecticut v. Glenn L. DOYLE. No. 25460. Argued Jan. 4, 2007. Decided
More information2017 CO 92. The supreme court holds that a translated Miranda warning, which stated that if
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2018-NMSC-001 Filing Date: November 9, 2017 Docket No. S-1-SC-35976 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, v. Plaintiff-Petitioner, WESLEY DAVIS, Defendant-Respondent.
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellee No. 772 EDA 2012
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. KHYNESHA E. GRANT Appellee No. 772 EDA 2012 Appeal from the Order
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HANCOCK COUNTY STATE OF OHIO CASE NUMBER v. O P I N I O N
[Cite as State v. Shoulders, 2005-Ohio-4749.] COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HANCOCK COUNTY STATE OF OHIO CASE NUMBER 5-05-05 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. O P I N I O N EMANUEL L. SHOULDERS DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
NOTICE The text of this opinion can be corrected before the opinion is published in the Pacific Reporter. Readers are encouraged to bring typographical or other formal errors to the attention of the Clerk
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 12-246 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- GENOVEVO SALINAS,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Sneed, 166 Ohio App.3d 492, 2006-Ohio-1749.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO The STATE OF OHIO, Appellant, v. SNEED, Appellee. : : : : :
More informationState of Wisconsin: Circuit Court: Milwaukee County: v. Case No. 2008CF000567
State of Wisconsin: Circuit Court: Milwaukee County: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2008CF000567 Miguel Ayala, and Carlos Gonzales, Defendant. Motion to Suppress Evidence Seized as a Result
More informationSay What?! A Review of Recent U.S. Supreme Court 5 th Amendment Self-incrimination Case Law
Say What?! A Review of Recent U.S. Supreme Court 5 th Amendment Self-incrimination Case Law POPPI RITACCO Attorney Advisor / Senior Instructor State and Local Training Division Federal Law Enforcement
More information